Public Bill Committee

[John Bercow in the Chair]

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

E&S 17 Careers England, the Institute of Career Guidance, National Association of Connexions Partners, Association for Careers Education and Guidance and the Inspiring Futures Foundation
E&S 18 Association of Directors of Children’s Services—Supplementary

Clause 33

Other amendments of Employment Rights Act 1996

Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in clause 33, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 105 (redundancy), after subsection (4A) insert—
“(4B) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was that specified in section 101B.”’.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 136.

Jim Knight: What a delight it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Bercow, particularly given that you look so refreshed after a couple of days’ rest from the Committee’s deliberations. It is also a delight to see the hon. Member for Bristol, West in his place, because we have missed him.
It is important to ensure that young people are not discriminated against at work simply because they wish to fulfil their duty to participate. Clause 32 makes it clear that employers must not discriminate against 16 or 17-year-olds for exercising their right to be permitted by their employer to attend education or training and that it would be deemed as unfair dismissal if someone were dismissed solely on those grounds. As the Committee is aware, young people will be required to participate only until they are 18, so there will be many cases where a young person will not have been continuously employed for a year while they are still subject to the duty to participate.
Normally, there is no right to claim unfair dismissal without a year’s continuous service, but amendment No. 136 means that claims for unfair dismissal under new section 101B, which clause 32 creates to deal with this issue, should be exempt from the usual requirement to have undertaken a year’s continuous employment. Amendment No. 135 is a further, consequential amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996, which clarifies the fact that it would be unfair to select someone for redundancy for the same reasons. I therefore propose that the amendment be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Parenting contracts

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 34, page 18, line 11, at end insert—
‘(2A) Prior to entering into a parenting contract the local education authority shall ensure that parents’ needs are assessed by the appropriate local authority adult services.’.
Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. You seem to be doing overtime at the moment, but you are very welcome. There is something rather incongruous about clauses 34 and 35 and about the use of parenting contracts and parenting orders to enforce the duty that the Bill imposes on 16 and 17-year-olds. That goes back to our earlier debate about what age constitutes maturity and the beginning of adulthood, and that is particularly pertinent to these provisions.
Sixteen-year-olds are regarded in law as old enough to marry and have children, so they could become parents themselves, only to find that their own parents are subject to a parenting contract about them. It is unrealistic to expect parents to rein in, or change the behaviour of, 16 or 17-year-olds who have decided to opt out of education and training. There might have been parenting problems while the children were growing up, and those problems might have contributed to the fact that the young person is no longer participating in education or training. It is naive and unrealistic to think that applying a parenting contract or order at this stage would help to tackle the issue, because it would be too late.

John Hayes: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I hope that I can assist my hon. Friend by reminding him that when he and I, in harness together, put it to the Minister in a Committee on a different Bill that parenting contracts should have greater statutory force at an earlier age, the Government resisted our overtures, so the current proposals are indeed incongruous.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am grateful to him for intervening. As he says, it will be too late to introduce parenting contracts, which would need to have been put in place when the children really were children.
Last year, 13,278 parenting contracts were made as a result of poor school attendance, which is 89 per local authority, using the Minister’s assessment of quantum. Some 2,535 contracts were made as a result of exclusions from school, which is just 17 per local authority. I suspect that the number of parenting contracts that will be issued as a result of the clause and as a consequence of 16- and 17-year-olds not participating in education or training will be small. It will certainly be smaller than the 89 and 17 per local authority issued in respect of children of compulsory school age.
Amendment No. 33 adds a new subsection to clause 34, requiring local authorities to ensure that the particular needs of the parents are assessed by the adult services department before a parenting contract is proposed or entered into. The amendment was inspired by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, which is concerned that young people who are carers, responsible for sick parents or siblings, may find themselves in breach of the duties to participate in education or training because of the burden of their own responsibilities.
The trust believes that before local authorities begin the enforcement process and approach the parents of those carers, they should assess the needs of the parents themselves, who may be ill or incapacitated. Community services may have proved inadequate, thus necessitating care by their children. In those cases, the local authority or primary care trust may have failed to fulfil its statutory duty to provide care for the parents. As the trust states in its briefing, the fact that there are so many young carers
“points to the fact that the current provision of community care support often does not meet the needs of families, requiring children to step into caring roles that can be incredibly demanding, including night-time care, intimate care, help with medication and taking responsibility for the safety of someone who is at risk of self-harm or substance overdose.”
I am sure that the Minister will agree with our concern over the problems faced by young carers, and I am sure that it is a simple oversight that has resulted in the Bill failing to include such provision. If the Government do not accept the amendment, down the line we will see officious local authorities proceeding with parenting contracts, apologetically explaining that their hands are tied by the legislation. I trust that we will receive a sympathetic response from the Minister, and, at the very least, a promise of a Government amendment along similar lines on Report.

Stephen Williams: It is nice to be back in Committee, and I thank the Minister for his warm welcome. I am representing my party while my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil is engaged on business elsewhere.
I broadly support what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said. One of the most moving meetings that I have had in the period of almost three years in which I have been a Member of Parliament was with a group of young carers, organised by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers in Bristol. The children present ranged in age from the quite young, who would not be affected by the Bill, to the late teens, who would be. Some of them had had incredible responsibilities placed on their young shoulders, as in many cases, they looked after a parent with multiple sclerosis or a terminal disease, or a sibling—a responsibility to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer.
Often teenagers have onerous home responsibilities that are not recognised or taken into account during the period of compulsory school attendance to the age of 16. As a result, more time and consideration may be required if, for instance, they have not done their homework, they turn up late for school, or they need to make phone calls during the day. There is plenty of evidence showing that the existing system of compulsory education does not take into account the special requirements of that group of young people.
Once those young people reach the age of 16 or 17 and have to take part in compulsory education to meet the requirements of the legislation, they may not be able to fulfil their domestic responsibilities to assist in the care of their parents or siblings. It would then be unreasonable for the state to impose a duty and a contract on the parent to allow their child to be away from home when they are dependent upon their child for part of their home care. The debate about whether it is fair that the parent should be dependent upon that child is for another time, but the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gave a good common-sense example to show that it could be detrimental to the rights of the parent if their child were obliged to attend college or go to the workplace when that they are dependent on the child for domestic assistance.

Gordon Marsden: I have considerable sympathy with the concern that the hon. Gentleman has articulated, but I would be interested to know what evidence he has that local authorities that have to deal with attendance issues in the pre-16 period are unsympathetic to the circumstances in which young carers find themselves.

Stephen Williams: I know from the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked when we both served on the Education and Skills Committee that he takes a close interest in these matters. My evidence came directly from the young people I met, who thought that their schools were not sympathetic to the requirements placed on them by their home duties. We have received written evidence from the Princess Royal Trust that the absence of a child who is a carer from school is often categorised as truancy, and we have had debates in Committee and elsewhere about what is authorised and what is unauthorised absence. There is already a problem with the way in which those children are categorised by the local authority, and we do not want that problem to be replicated later in the system. The amendment responds to concerns that the measure would put an onerous duty on the parent to ensure that their child attends college. That could be going too far, so I wish to support the amendment.

Jim Knight: I shall begin by saying a few things about the principle of parent contracts and orders, then move on to address the amendment. It is worth pointing out to the Committee that we already have parenting contracts and orders for over-16s with regard to behaviour. It is only the duties limited to school attendance that apply to compulsory school age. As we discussed when we debated whether it is appropriate to impose a duty post-16, the principle is established that the period between the ages of 16 and 19 is a transitional period between childhood and adolescence, and it is appropriate in certain circumstances to look at parents’ responsibilities for people of that age.

Angela Watkinson: The amendment raises the issue of circumstances in which there are two parents in the equation. There is the first generation parent: the parent of the teenager. If the teenager concerned is a 16-year-old girl who is herself a mother, she, too, is a parent and has parenting responsibilities. If that girl does not remain in the family home and is living in hostel accommodation or a council flat, under the terms of the Bill, is that a sufficient and reasonable excuse for her not to be engaged in education or training? Where does the responsibility lie for the continuing education and training of the teenage girl? Does it lie with her parents?

John Bercow: Order. I think that I have the drift and, more importantly, I think that the Minister does, too.

Jim Knight: Yes, I think so, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to seek to clarify that issue. In such circumstances, it is important that the mother of the young child, as opposed to the parent of the young mother, should receive appropriate support. There should be no enforcement against her unless that support is in place and a programme is available such as care to learn, which assists young parents with child care when they want to access college courses. All of those factors would need properly to be taken into consideration by the local authority in fulfilling its duty to enable young people to fulfil their duties.
It would be extremely unlikely that an authority would think it appropriate to use a contract or an order for the parent of a young mother. The test set out in subsection (2)(b) is that
“the authority considers that entering into the parenting contract would be desirable in the interests of the young person’s fulfilment of that duty.”
The test is whether it would be useful in assisting the young person, and the Committee must take that into account in its discussions on parenting contracts. There may be cases in which parents obstruct young people in the fulfilment of their duty. For example, they might insist that the young person remains at home looking after younger siblings or they might indulge in some form of antisocial activity late into the night that keeps the young person awake. It would be appropriate to reach an agreement with such parents—and that is what a parenting contract is—to set out quite clearly that they have a responsibility to ensure that their children get a reasonable night’s sleep so that they can participate in their college or training course.
Naturally, I agree with the sentiment and intention behind the amendment in respect of carers. It is critical that the local authority assess the support needs of young carers. A cross-Government review of the national carers strategy is under way, and provides an opportunity to reassess the support available to young carers. Young carers have been consulted and stakeholder bodies with knowledge of the issues are fully engaged. We look forward to receiving the detailed recommendations later this year. In the interim, to help secure early progress, we announced in the children’s plan our intention to build on our existing plans for family pathfinders. Up to six pathfinders will be extended to test the provision of more effective support for families with young carers. The aim is to achieve better provision by ensuring that support is organised so that children in the family do not fall into inappropriate or burdensome caring roles in the first place. Pathfinders will provide invaluable learning on these issues, which will be shared across all areas, and £3 million is available over the next three years to support that goal. We are also funding the Children’s Society and the Princess Royal Trust, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, to deliver a programme of training for services that support young carers and their families. That training is due to roll out across the first set of regions early this year.
We expect local authorities to assess the needs of the parent before entering into a parenting contract. Guidance for local authorities on parenting contracts for non-attendance of children under 16 says that they should consult other agencies involved, identify issues and carry out an assessment using the common assessment framework. However, it would not be appropriate to make that a statutory requirement. It will be for local authorities to judge what is appropriate in each case, having regard to guidance and to any assessment that they have carried out regarding the parent and the young person. They may be well acquainted with the family’s circumstances, for example, as a result of the involvement of other local authority services, so such an assessment might not always be necessary. Requiring local authorities to carry out an additional assessment when they have recently completed an assessment of the family would be an additional and unnecessary burden. It is better to retain flexibility by keeping the provisions as they are at the moment.

Nick Gibb: Does the Minister think that communications between the statutory bodies that deal with such problems are adequate, given the Victoria ClimbiÃ(c) tragedy and subsequent tragedies of a similar nature that have happened in recent weeks?

Jim Knight: I think that they can always be improved, and we are gradually doing so. We have made really good progress on safeguarding young people, which will be improved further by the data sharing that we so much enjoyed discussing on Tuesday. That will allow agencies dealing with young people to see which other agencies have had access to them. If they are part of the same local authority, there is even greater potential for people to be aware of what is going on in a particular family, through case conferences and so on. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intention, and I stress that I expect local authorities to conduct assessments, but I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am not persuaded by the Minister’s response. He seems to be relying on the assertion, to repeat his phrase, that “We would expect parents’ needs to be assessed” and that there is a statutory requirement to consult other agencies. However, there is not a statutory requirement to assess the needs of these particular parents. I am afraid that I do not have the same trust as he does in the communication abilities of the people who should take that responsibility.
Even now, after the Every Child Matters agenda has been implemented across local authorities, at vast expense and with a reorganisation of their departments, we still have the problem of people not communicating, highlighted in recent news stories. A baby was tortured to death, and despite scores of incidents of involvement of health professionals, no action was taken by a local authority children’s services department. I do not believe that the Minister is right to rely on what happens in local authorities. He says that they may well be acquainted with a family’s circumstances, but they may well not. It is important that there is a statutory requirement on local authorities, before they start issuing parenting contracts, to assess the needs of parents, who may well have medical needs that are not being addressed by social services.
The Minister referred to clause 34(2), which states that a local authority in England
“may enter into a parenting contract with a parent of the young person—
(a) if the parent is resident in England, and
(b) the authority considers that entering into the parenting contract would be desirable in the interests of the young person’s fulfilment of that duty.”
He interprets that as applying if a parent is keeping their child up at night or doing something negative to prevent a 16-year-old from participating in education or training, but that is not the only possible interpretation. In fact, the most common interpretation is that there is a positive duty on the parent to do something to help the young person into education or training. In the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster gave—a young mother living in separate accommodation—it would be naive to expect that parent to have influence over the young person and persuade them into education or training.
I am not convinced, and I do not think that the Minister has convinced other members of the Committee, so I wish to press the amendment.

Jim Knight: I do not usually seek another go, but I stress that the clause states that the local authority
“may enter into a parenting contract”.
It is not required to do so. Subsection (6) states that a parenting contract
“does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort”,
so a person cannot be sued for breaching it. Subsection (3)(b) mentions
“a statement by the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the parent”.
In many cases, the contracts are a valuable way to clarify support. If a parent has problems such as not receiving sufficient local authority support, contracts can be positive.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

John Bercow: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening and will happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Oliver Heald: I think that I have the basic idea of what parenting contracts are about, but I wonder whether it would be possible for the Minister to circulate some examples of contracts that he thinks might be useful. Are they simply about parents trying to force the child to go to college? What exactly is the nature of the contract?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good and valuable point, and I hope that the Minister will intervene on me to respond to it.

Jim Knight: I am grateful, Mr. Bercow, and I know that interventions should be short.
I tried to give one or two examples earlier. We introduced the contract, like the orders, mostly as a mechanism to deal with parents who are obstructing young people fulfilling their duty through their behaviour or by asking them to do things that are unreasonable when they have another duty to perform. But, as I said, there may also be circumstances in which it would be helpful for the local authority to clarify the support that they will give to the parent, as the support the parent should give to the child.

Nick Gibb: I feel like a middleman in an important dialogue, but I will now address the point that the Minister made about subsection (3)(b), which states that a parenting contract should contain
“a statement by the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the parent”.
He is right to cite the subsection, but the contract can include a statement of support for the parent only if the local authority is aware of the needs of the parent. I therefore see no harm in simply adding to the clause the phrase:
“Prior to entering into a parenting contract the local education authority shall ensure that parents’ needs are assessed by the appropriate local authority adult services.”
Such a requirement would not add burdensome assessment. If there are no needs and if both parents are healthy, it will be a two-minute job, which is less than the 10 minutes that the Minister is requiring every employer to spend on assessing new employees who start work with them. It would not be burdensome, nor would it detract from the clause; in fact, it would enhance it. Therefore, I would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Parenting orders

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 35, page 19, line 1, leave out ‘, but need not,’.
This is a short amendment to question whether a phrase such as “but need not” in a subsection that gives a permissive power for a parenting order to include a particular requirement is proper legislative language. Clearly, if the provision gives rise to a permissive power rather than a requirement, it already is the case that the power need not be used. The phrase is tautologous and rather folksy in its drafting and, therefore, should be removed.

Jim Knight: The phrase “but need not”, however folksy, is commonly used in legislation. It is used in the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in respect of parenting orders for antisocial behaviour. In this Bill, it emphasises that the court has discretion in respect of the requirements imposed in the order.
It is important that orders are tailored to meet the individual needs of the parent so that he or she can most effectively deal with the behaviour that is of concern. That discretion, which is made exceptionally clear by the use of “may” and “but need not”, reflects that. I would argue that the phrase should be retained, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his interesting amendment.

Nick Gibb: I tabled it as an interesting amendment, Mr. Bercow, but the matter has now been debated at length, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Parenting orders: appeals

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in clause 37, page 19, line 31, at end add—
‘(3) The grounds for an appeal under subsection (1) shall include a lack of suitable educational or training provision for the needs of the person to whom this Part applies.’.
The clause allows for appeals against parenting orders to be made to the Crown court. The amendment was tabled to enable the Minister to respond to the concern expressed by the National Union of Teachers in paragraph 20 of its briefing. The amendment applies equally to clause 43 and the grounds for appeal against attendance notices. The NUT says that the Bill provides for appeals
“but does not appear to allow for appeals on the grounds that the availability of the education or training available is not suited to their needs.”
The Minister’s response to its concerns would be appreciated.

Jim Knight: The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who spoke on behalf of the National Union of Teachers, will pass that comment on to his comrades. Clause 37 provides for parents a clear right of appeal to the Crown court against the making of a parenting order, if they feel that one has been issued unjustly. The grounds for such an appeal are currently unspecified and unrestricted, so there is no need for the explicit provision in the amendment.
A parent who believed that the court making the parenting order was unjust to conclude that such an order would be desirable in the interest of the young person’s fulfilment of the duty—because, for example, no suitable provision was available locally—might appeal on that basis. Parents can appeal for whatever reason they choose. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amendment is unnecessary, and withdraw it.

Nick Gibb: I am sure that my comrades at the NUT, with whom we have a good relationship, which we hope will continue, will be reassured by the Minister’s response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Parenting contracts and parenting orders: further provisions

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 38, page 20, line 2, after ‘cases’, insert
‘, in particular those relating to parents who are estranged from their children.’.
The clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about parenting orders, and the amendment is intended to ensure that he would include in such regulations limits on the powers of local authorities to issue a parenting order in circumstances where the children are estranged from their parents. A 16 or 17-year-old child may have left home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, on bad terms with their parents, and there may no longer be any contact. In those circumstances it would be unreasonable of the local authority to impose a parenting order on the parents, so the legislation should limit the power to make such an order in those circumstances.

Jim Knight: We have discussed at some length the reasons for not excluding various, often vulnerable, groups from different provisions, so I shall try to be brief. First, we do not want to specify any individual groups in the Bill. Everyone will be catered for, but it is not appropriate to introduce caveats in primary legislation for a range of specific groups. Secondly, the intention of the regulations is not to exclude any specific groups of parents. The relevant part of the Bill draws on existing legislation for parenting contracts and parenting orders, and the limitations of the regulations in this instance are in reference to where people live, rather than the exclusion of any groups.
The reason for the regulation-making powers is to ensure that the system is flexible enough to respond when a young person who fails to fulfil the duty is resident in one local education authority, but their parent is resident in another. The powers are also needed to set down further details of what should be done in such cases.
To issue a parenting order, a local authority will have to apply to the courts and provide information on the background of the young person. That information should include details of the relationship between the young person and their parent, which would help to inform the local authority and the court whether an order against that parent would be appropriate. A parenting order can be made only where the court is satisfied that that would be in the interest of getting the young person to participate. Clearly, the court would have to be satisfied that an order against an estranged parent was in the interest of getting the young person to participate.
When we make the regulations, judgments may be made about whether estranged parents should be included, but it would be appropriate to consult on matters relating to the regulations at the appropriate time, rather than to pre-empt any decision now. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and I just emphasise one point. The amendment would not exclude the group that we are talking about from the general duty to participate, but it does address the issue of whether a parenting order would have any credibility when applied to a parent who has no contact with their own children.
None the less, I take on board the Minister’s persuasive points about the court having to take into account the relationship between the parent and the child before issuing a parenting order. I was also encouraged by his comment that when he and the Department come to make the regulations, judgments may be made about whether to include the circumstances alluded to in the amendment. On the basis of those helpful comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Failure to fulfil duty under section 2: initial steps

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 39, page 20, line 40, at end insert ‘, and
(c) must make an assessment of the person’s ability to benefit from the support offered.’.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 68, in clause 39, page 20, line 40, at end insert ‘, and
(c) may grant a waiver from this obligation where this seems in the best interests of the person.’.
No. 69, in clause 40, page 21, line 35, at end insert—
‘(2A) This further notice must not be issued before the authority has made an assessment of the person’s ability to comply with the initial notice, and whether this meets their needs.’.

Stephen Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil assured me that, given the glacial pace at which the Committee had cantered—or, rather, not cantered—through previous clauses, there was absolutely no chance that we would reach this stage before 10 o’clock, when he is scheduled to join us. For the past few minutes, I have therefore been somewhat panic-stricken and I have been reading through the amendments that my hon. Friend drafted and tabled. I will have to make my best attempt—[ Interruption. ] Well, it demonstrates palpable honesty in front of fellow Committee members. I will try my best to interpret what my hon. Friend would have said had he been here or had we been able to travel forward 20 minutes in time to when he was here.
The amendments suggest that if the local authority is to offer support to the young person to ensure that they can fulfil their obligations under the Bill to attend compulsory education or training, some assessment should be made of whether that support is appropriate. During our evidence sessions a few weeks ago, we heard some interesting evidence from various bodies, particularly the Prince’s Trust and Fairbridge, which suggested that some of the people at whom the Bill is aimed in the broadest sense—those not in education, employment or training—lead quite dysfunctional lives. They might have an addiction to drugs or alcohol or might have been in and out of the criminal justice system. The support offered to them by the local authority might not, therefore, necessarily address the fundamental needs that they have in their daily lives, and that might be one of the underlying reasons why they are unable to fulfil the obligation in the Bill to attend college.
Obviously, if someone has an addiction to heroin, or some other part of their life is dysfunctional, attending college or workplace training will not be at the forefront of their minds, and their attendance might not be welcomed by the institution or employer anyway. The compulsion introduced by the Bill will clearly not have the desired effect of ensuring that that group of people have a measurable level of educational attainments by the time that they are 18.
It will be clear from our earlier discussions and the questions that we asked during our evidence sessions that my hon. Friend and I would prefer these young people with dysfunctional lives to be given more access to the support services that would make a tangible differences to their circumstances, such as more drug rehabilitation and treatment and more investment in mental health, if such problems are the reason why they cannot fulfil their duty to participate. The purpose of the amendments is to put in place a requirement to assess whether young people’s health needs—I see drug addiction as a health problem—or mental health needs have been properly dealt with before further duties are placed on them. Our aim is to ensure that the relevant support is there so that the local authority can take an holistic approach. I have done the best that I can in the circumstances.

Jim Knight: It is a pleasure to move to chapter 5, which is headed “Attendance Notices”. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bristol, West would like to issue an attendance notice on the hon. Member for Yeovil so that he can speak to his own amendments.
The amendments return us to discussions that we had at some length earlier in the Committee process about the support that should be offered to young people found to be not participating. Its intention is one that I share, as I have already set out: no young person should enter the enforcement system if they have unmet support needs.
Amendment No. 67 would mean that, before a local authority could give an initial notice, in addition to what the clause already requires, they would need to assess the person’s ability to benefit from the support offered. I believe that the intention of this amendment is already reflected in subsections (5)(a) and (b) and (6)(b). For the benefit of the Committee, I will briefly run through those provisions. Subsection (5)(a) states that the local authority
“must take all reasonable steps to secure that relevant support is offered”.
We have discussed that at considerable length, including what it means in respect of particular groups of young people. Subsection (5)(b) states that the local authority
“may not give the notice unless satisfied that the person has been afforded an opportunity to take advantage of the support offered.”
That, in my view, requires precisely the sort of assessment the amendment would insert into the clause. A local authority could not be satisfied that the young person has had the opportunity to benefit from the support offered if it considered that the young person in question did not have the ability to benefit from the support offered.
Subsection (6) then states that the local authority can begin enforcement action only if the young person is failing to fulfil the duty without reasonable excuse. I have, at the request of the absent hon. Member for Yeovil, written to the Committee about my thinking on “reasonable excuse”. I am sure that he will have a reasonable excuse for the hon. Member for Bristol, West. I hope that he will understand that as we are five years away from implementing the provisions of the Bill, I wish to use that time to consult fully with organisations such as those from which we heard during our evidence sessions and which the hon. Member for Bristol, West, speaking with alacrity on his feet, mentioned. My thinking will undoubtedly develop as a result of that consultation.
The relevant support referred to in subsection (5)(a) would be provided by Connexions, which is based on its personal advisers developing a sufficient understanding of a young person’s needs in order to assess what support might be most appropriate to meet those needs. Subsections (5) and (6) would mean that a local authority will not begin enforcement unless they have provided the right support.
Amendment No. 68 returns us to the question of a waiver certificate, which we debated at length in relation to clause 1, many moons ago. I believe there was an eclipse of the moon last night and it almost feels as though we were discussing clause 1 at the time of the previous eclipse. As I made clear to the Committee then, we do not support issuing any type of waiver to specific groups of young people to exempt them from the duty. The hon. Member for Yeovil withdrew his amendment that first introduced the concept of a waiver certificate in relation to clause 1, and I hope that this colleague the hon. Member for Bristol, West will do the same here. I know that he does not mean to suggest that young people should be denied the opportunities offered by participation in education and training.
As I understand it, amendment No. 69 would require local authorities to conduct an assessment of a young person’s ability to comply with an attendance notice before any such notice is issued. I do not believe that that would add anything to the caveats relating to attendance notices in clauses 41 and 42. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that before issuing an attendance notice, a local authority must satisfy itself that the named provision meets the young person’s needs. It will also have the knowledge of the matters that an attendance panel would take into account in considering any appeal by a young person against an attendance notice. The attendance panel provides an important independent check on the local authority’s actions, which I am sure that we will discuss fairly shortly. I look forward to that and hope, in the light of my reassurances, that the hon. Member for Bristol, West will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams: I shall keep my remarks brief. Having heard the Minister’s assurances, I have only one option: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Attendance notice

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 151, in clause 40, page 21, line 26, at end insert—
‘(b) the local education authority has taken all reasonable steps to secure that person’s voluntary participation in required education or training.’.
 Mr. Hayes rose—

Nick Gibb: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have chance to contribute shortly.
An attendance notice follows the issue of a written notice by a local authority, as provided for in clause 39. Although the written notice must give at least 15 days’ notice of the issuance of an attendance notice, under clause 40, the local authority has a six-month window during which it can get around to issuing an attendance notice. If those provisions become law in 2013 or 2015 and are not overtaken by other eye-catching Government initiatives, it would be interesting to see how many such notices are actually issued. A six-month window, out of what will be in reality less than two years of a 16 or 17-year-old’s life, will eat into the time during which those provisions can be used.
Amendment No. 51, which was inspired by my friends in the National Union of Teachers, would add another condition that would have to be fulfilled before an attendance notice can be issued. In its briefing, the NUT states that the
“purpose of the amendment...is to help ensure the emphasis of the Bill is on the rights of young people to participate in education or training post-16 over and above an emphasis on a punishable duty”.
I expect and hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings will expand on that point when he contributes to the debate.
The NUT went on to state that it is arguable that the effect of the amendment is largely cosmetic. It wrote:
“However, the NUT believes that such a presentational difference is vital if the overall message is as the Government clearly intends and if the system of enforcement is to be seen as very much a last resort”.

John Hayes: Such is the enthusiasm of the of the Front-Bench team fielded by the Opposition that we can barely resist the temptation to rise in support of the amendments that we have crafted. I am delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to add to the few words that he offered in support of the amendment.
As we have heard, clause 40 enables local education authorities to issue attendance notices specifying the type of provision to be undertaken, a description of the course and details of where and when a young person should attend. According to the Local Government Association, there are four steps to that enforcement process. It says:
“The first step will be for the learning provider to try to identify and address the issues by providing additional support or identify alternative learning programmes.”
Secondly:
“If the young person drops out of learning, the local authority will have a responsibility to contact them and work with them over a period to identify appropriate alternative learning options.”
Thirdly:
“If the young person still does not engage”—
having been through that process with the local authority—
“they will be given a formal last chance to engage voluntarily”,
and the situation if they do not do so will be made clear. The LGA continues:
“The local authority will decide when the time is appropriate for this and will then have the power, to issue an Attendance Notice, specifying precisely the provision that the young person must attend, and where and when they must do so. Appeals will be referred to an independent adjudication panel, which the local authority will set up. The panel will review the steps that the local authority has taken to ensure that there had been sufficient opportunity and support to engage voluntarily. The panel would have powers to confirm or dismiss the Attendance Notice and to recommend the local authority to take action to meet the needs of the young person.”
Fourthly, according to the LGA:
“If the young person did not meet the terms of their attendance notice, the local authority could issue them with a Fixed Penalty Notice.”
We debated that issue during our extensive discussions about compulsion. The provision before us essentially means that action against the young person will be stepped up if those early attempts to engage them by means of adjusting what is available to them, properly informing them and providing support and encouragement, fail.
The fourth stage, according to the LGA, includes further measures:
“Appeals would again go to the same panel, which would confirm or dismiss the notice. If the FPN is unpaid the local authority would bring the case before a Youth Court, where the penalty on conviction would be a fine.”
That measure is regarded as the last resort, as the Minister said repeatedly when we discussed the issue before. The LGA states that if a fine is unpaid, the youth court has options beyond custody,
“including taking money from wages or imposing an unpaid work requirement.”
The Minister has assured us that no one will go to prison, but the process, although well defined and an accelerating one, ends with someone having a conviction—being a criminal in the sense that I have described.
Clause 40 does not require local authorities to have taken all reasonable steps to secure voluntary participation in education and training before an attendance notice is issued. Our amendment would clarify the position and ensure that young people were guided to the most appropriate education and training before any formal sanctions were used. That is the essential point. There should be a well understood, transparent and logical process, which accelerates the action that the local authority might take. However, there should also be an absolute requirement to avoid a formal process until such time as all other options have been exhausted.
I know that the Minister shares that view, because he expressed it earlier in our deliberations. It is critical that we encourage young people to commit to participation of their own will, because if they do so, there is a much greater chance of their succeeding—of seeing their training through and developing the skills that they need to become increasingly employable. The amendment would ensure that the formal process did not kick in until everything that could be—and, in my judgment, must be—done to encourage voluntary participation had been done.

Jim Knight: Of course we want as many young people as possible to engage voluntarily in learning, without having to use sanctions. That is the aim of local authorities too, as John Freeman from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services told us. He is the director of children’s services in Dudley and in evidence to the Committee he said that
“we see enforcement as the last option and, indeed, an indication that we have failed somewhere. A disengaged young person is not just an indication that they have failed, but that we have failed.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 Jan 2008; c. 72, Q174]
That is why we have emphasised the need to put the provision in place. Every young person, wherever they are in the country and whatever level they are working at, will be able to find a suitable learning option. We are focusing on ensuring that there is the right support, from careers education and guidance in schools, to the Connexions service and talented youth support, for young people both to engage with, and stay in, learning and to achieve. We will also ensure that there is extra help for those with special educational needs.
The amendment to clause 40 is not necessary. It might be helpful if I quickly mention the 10 stages that we have introduced, as opposed to the four stages that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has identified, so that hon. Members are clear about the extent to which there is a last resort in the courts. The first stage is support from the learning provider. If a young person encounters problems or shows signs of disengaging from learning, the first step is for the learning provider to try to identify and address the issue by providing additional support or identifying an alternative learning programme. The second stage is notification to Connexions. If the young person drops out altogether, the learning provider will have a duty to inform the local authority or its Connexions service provider, which will then contact the young person to try to identify what the problems are. Over time, the guidance service will work with the young person to offer advice and broker support to help them to re-engage with learning. That is the third stage: the support from Connexions, which will identify an appropriate learning option and provide support to take that up.
A last chance—the fourth stage—is provided if the young person still does not engage once a suitable programme has been identified and appropriate support provided—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Yeovil has arrived. I only wish that we could all be party to the discussions that he will probably have with the hon. Member for Bristol, West. He can be assured that an attendance notice is on its way stating that he has missed the fourth stage—the last chance—that I was talking about. If the young person has been offered a suitable programme and additional support has been provided, and they have no outstanding barriers to participation or reasonable excuses for not participating, they should be given a formal last chance to engage voluntarily.
The fifth stage is 15 days’ notice. There is a point at which the local authority takes a clear decision to begin enforcement. A young person cannot enter the enforcement system automatically or accidentally. The local authority must consciously make that decision and then give the young person 15 days’ notice in writing that they will be issued with an attendance notice—the initial steps that are set out in clause 39. Stage six is the issuing of an attendance notice. At stage seven, the young person can appeal against the attendance notice, and stage eight is the serving of a fixed penalty notice, which again is appealable. There would then be a fine in the youth court and, finally, fine enforcement. There are plenty of stages all the way down the track.

Nick Gibb: I suspect that that process will take about 10 years. What is the time scale over which the Minister believes that would happen?

Jim Knight: Until youth court proceedings have started, the process can be halted at any stage by the young person if they voluntarily choose to take up the support that they have been offered. The process may take some time, but it certainly will not take years for it to be completed. The vast majority of the process involves providing support. Once we get to the formal enforcement stage matters are pursued through the magistrates courts, which is a fairly familiar process that I think we are all aware can be relatively swift. Obviously, those in extremis who end up in court will be subject to court processes, which can take a bit longer. However, we hope that, as in cases where the participation age has been raised, we will not get to the stage of court enforcement.

John Hayes: Some aspects of the process that the Minister described are subject to time limits, but other parts are not. Would not it be useful to set a timetable for the various steps that he has described—my four stages or his 10, whichever is more appropriate? The process could begin, but not end until after a person has aged beyond the constraints implicit in the Bill—they could reach 18 or 19—and that would be entirely inappropriate.

Jim Knight: Clearly, if the person reaches the age beyond which the law no longer applies, the process would cease because it would become pointless. As for setting timetables, it is right that we should specify 15 days’ notice. The reason for doing so is to ensure that we do everything we can to get that young person to participate, so the sooner we can get on with the process the better. It is not particularly helpful to specify individual time scales in legislation, as we are some years away from the date on which these measures come into effect. A time scale that seems reasonable now might not be reasonable in a few years’ time. I agree that we must do all we can to get as many young people as possible to participate voluntarily, but the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is unnecessary. It was a sharp contrast to see two lead spokesmen rise to speak to the amendment, given the reluctance of any hon. Member to speak to the earlier amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I hope that both the hon. Gentlemen will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: The Minister has made it clear that the enforcement process leading to a fixed penalty is a last resort, and he helpfully fleshed out the process for the Committee’s benefit. However, it would be helpful to have some sense of the timetable, at least in guidance, for the benefit of local authorities. Flexibility is required, because each case is different. The measures deal with complex issues and individuals—those individuals have different needs and different circumstances apply— but some kind of timetable or time framework would be a useful addition. The Minister might want to reflect on that and return to it later.
The Minister handled the amendment in a conciliatory and professional way, despite his cutting asides to the Liberal Democrats, which I thought harsh. I had begun to think that the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Bristol, West were one and the same person as we have never seen them together until today, but that has been disproved. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow: Highly uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has overreached himself. It was perfectly in order for him to speak to the amendment any number of times, but I am afraid that he is not empowered to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw it, simply because it is not his. I call Mr. Nick Gibb.

Nick Gibb: You will be unsurprised to know, Mr. Bercow, that I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. I, too, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 40, page 21, leave out lines 41 to 45.
I noticed the look of doubt on your face, Mr. Bercow, as to whether my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil or I would move the amendment. I was grateful for the arrival of the cavalry from Yeovil, but my hon. Friend has said that as I have had time to think about the amendment, I might as well move it. I was also grateful for the peroration from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, as it has given me adequate time to think about what the amendment would do in removing subsection (5) from clause 40. The measure is too prescriptive an interpretation of the needs of the young person. Subsection (5)(a) will direct which institution the young person may be required to attend for their compulsory education or training, but the Bill does not go on to say that practical common-sense considerations should be taken into account when it comes to selecting an institution. A young person’s education destination might be selected against their will.
In some parts of the country, geography may be a relevant factor when an attendance notice requires a young person to attend a further education college. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said a couple of times in the Chamber that the nearest college to the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed is 50 miles away. It would therefore be nonsensical for an attendance notice imposed by Northumberland county council, for example, to require a person from Berwick to attend a college rather than a school. The Bill does not allow such common-sense considerations to be taken into account.
There may also be reasons why an institution would not want to accept a person who is imposed on them. As we know, some young people choose not to stay on beyond 16 because they have had a bad experience of school, and perhaps the school has had a bad experience of them. For example, they may have been subject to disciplinary procedures at school; they may have been suspended or even expelled. The Bill does not take into account whether a school or college would wish to have a young person imposed upon them for compulsory attendance as a result of an attendance notice.
Subsection (5)(b) goes even further by removing all element of choice whatever from the young person who is subject to a notice. The measure therefore not only determines which educational institution a person should be required to attend, but what course they should be required to study. Subsequent subsections do not make any reference to whether a course is appropriate for the individual or the career that they are expected to follow in future, or whether courses take heed of previous educational achievements or non-achievements at age 16. For instance, in theory, it would be quite ridiculous to impose a duty on someone to study A-level economics if they had only secured grade F at GCSE maths, yet there is no provision in the measure to account for the previous attainments of a young person when specifying the exact name and description of the course that they are to take.
The implications of the measure for young people and the institutions that they will be required to attend are stark, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has not intervened, I take it that I have made all the points that he would have made, and perhaps some that he might not have made.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. The process must illustrate maximum sensitivity both to the person and to the institutions that, by proxy, are involved in the process. Specifying an institution and course, as the hon. Gentleman described, might create tensions between institutions and local authorities and even, as he implied, reach a point at which institutions feel that they have had imposed on them some of the most difficult and challenging young people.
Institutions should deal with challenging young people, but it would be better if there was a degree of collaboration or willing co-operation. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point that there will come a stage, if we are not careful, when institutions that have had increasingly difficult young people imposed upon them see the local authority as the enemy. I do not know whether he intended his amendment to be a probing one, but the Minister needs to be clear about the relationship between the local authority, institutions and individuals. It is critical to ensure that there is maximum sensitivity in that relationship if the measure is to work.

Jim Knight: The intention behind an attendance notice is to set out clearly for the young person and everyone involved in helping them to participate exactly what is required from them. The amendment may reflect confusion about the purpose of including in the attendance notice details of the type of provision that should be undertaken, a description of the course, and details of where and when the young person should attend. I appreciate that, to some extent, the hon. Member for Bristol, West is catching up, and that to rush ahead and read clause 45(2) might be more than could reasonably be asked of him, given the role that he is fulfilling for his party at the moment. Clause 45(2) says:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that he or she is, and since the giving of the attendance notice has been, fulfilling the duty imposed by section 2.”
They do not have to do what it says on the notice, as long as they are fulfilling their legal obligation to participate.

Stephen Williams: I acknowledge that I am playing catch-up, but why does clause 40(5), which is the subject of the amendment, say that
“the attendance notice must specify”,
rather than “may” specify?

Jim Knight: It must specify an appropriate course, location and time, so that it is clear to everyone that there is a suitable form of provision for the young person, but if the young person finds other provision in which they wish to partake, they should be able to do so.
The reason for including the details is not to force the young person to participate in a particular way, or to limit their options. If they received an attendance notice they could still choose to fulfil their duty via any one of the range of available options. In setting out the appropriate details, we are aiming to make it easier for the young person to comply with the duty by making it absolutely clear what is expected of them. They are still free to participate in any other way.
On the points that have been made about schools having young people imposed on them, it is worth moving forward to clause 41(6)(a) and (b), which says that the local authority must consult and be satisfied with arrangements that have been made for education and training to be provided with the appropriate institutions. In respect of it being suitable education for the young person, clause 41(5) says:
“The education or training must be suitable for the person.”

Oliver Heald: To clarify one matter, clause 39 requires the notice of failure to comply to be given in writing, but clause 40 does not appear to say that that is the case. Is that because the Minister envisages that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to give an oral notice, or it is implied in some way that it should be in writing?

Jim Knight: The notice certainly has to be given in writing, and it must be extremely clear to everyone concerned what is required, and that the provision is in place so that it is, if necessary, enforceable. The details are set out in the attendance notice, which is a clear document that can be returned to if the young person wanted to dispute whether the provision offered was appropriate. Clause 41 provides further details about the description of education and training that must be made, and it makes it clear that it must be suitable for the young person. If a young person wishes to appeal to an attendance panel, the attendance notice gives a clear, written description of what has been offered.

Oliver Heald: I had assumed that the “written notice” in clause 39 was in some way implied in clause 40.
What will happen to the 40,000 people a year who leave school unable to read, write and add up? Will these notices be explained to such people by somebody, and if so, by whom?

Jim Knight: I shall not go back over—

John Bercow: Order. As the debate has progressed, it has gone somewhat beyond the parameters of the amendment under discussion. We have strayed or elided into what is effectively a clause stand part debate. The Committee will naturally expect me to take that into account in deciding whether a clause stand part debate is necessary when the time comes. I will leave the Minister to use his judgment on whether and to what extent to respond to the points that have strayed.

Jim Knight: Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I will pass over the fears about reading, writing and adding up. I think that I have made it clear to the Committee that I dispute the version of events given by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
Throughout this process, there should be engagement by the personal adviser with the young person, talking them through the process. Equally, those responsible for enforcement in the local authority should ensure that the young person understands what is set out in the notice and that they can halt the process at any point by voluntarily participating under the provisions set out in the notice, or by an alternative route that complies with the duties set out in clause 2.

Stephen Williams: I want to backtrack to before the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The Minister was trying to give me some comfort by drawing my attention to clause 41(6), which says that the educational institution should be consulted before, in effect, a person is imposed on it. However, consulting on something does not necessarily mean that the response will be respected. How will a school be able to respond if it is invited by the local authority to take on a 17-year-old who has previously been expelled from that institution?

Jim Knight: All the various other regulations and obligations that apply in respect of admissions to institutions would apply. Crucially, as set out in clause 41(5):
“The education or training must be suitable for the person.”
In a scenario where the institution does not want to provide education or training, there would be questions about suitability, because the person will not be properly engaged in the course if it is being delivered reluctantly. We should allow for those issues to be decided according to local circumstances. The provision offers considerable flexibility.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the amendment would make it unclear what is expected of a young person and an important protection for them would therefore be lost. In the light of that reasoning, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams: I have listened to the Minister’s assurances with great care, but am not particularly reassured by all of them. He has not dealt with the second set of remarks that I made about clause 40(5)(b), which prescribes what course an individual will take. Perhaps he would like to intervene to deal with that point.

Jim Knight: I apologise if I did not discretely mention subsection (5)(b), but all of the details set out in subsection (5) are a clear description, so that it is clear that something appropriate has been offered and is available. Again, if an individual wanted to go to the school, college or educational establishment named in the notice, but to do a different course, as long as it fulfils the clause 2 duty, the process will cease because that course will fulfil their duty.

Stephen Williams: I thank the Minister for that response. A process must be gone through that engages the young person and the educational institution that will be required to receive them. The appropriateness of the education that is prescribed in subsection (5)(b) must be considered and the person’s previous record in education taken into account. As long as the Minister gives the assurance that those common-sense applications will follow from the legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Attendance notice: description of education or training

David Laws: I beg to move amendment No. 164, in clause 41, page 22, line 33, after ‘person’, insert:
‘having regard to a person’s age, ability, aptitude and needs (if any) for personalised support and personalised learning opportunities’.
Good morning, Mr. Bercow. What a pleasure it is to be here today for part of the Committee’s proceedings. I start by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. I assured him that, given the previous speed of the Committee’s proceedings, there was little chance we would get past clauses 36 or 37 before I arrived at 10 o’clock. I am somewhat concerned to discover that the Committee has made such rapid progress in my absence.

Jim Knight: I would be interested in whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a relationship between the speed with which we are progressing and his attendance in the Committee.

David Laws: I will have to reflect during the course of my speech on the clause on whether there is a direct causal link, or whether hon. Members are trying to catch me offside by being briefer than usual. I will leave that to the Minister to decide.
Using the well tested technique of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, I will quote from the explanatory notes on the clause, which state:
“Clause 41 provides that the education or training specified in the attendance notice must be a course provided at a school, college or other education establishment or a contract of apprenticeship, and be a way of fulfilling the clause 2 duty. It must be suitable to the person and the local education authority must consult the provider of the education or training.”
Our amendment deals with the matter of suitability and, in particular, with subsection (5), which states:
“The education or training must be suitable for the person.”
The amendment is not only felt to be necessary by us, but was suggested to us by various outside bodies and supported by others. In fact, the National Union of Teachers first suggested to us the particular form of wording to help to ensure that local authorities identify individual needs by providing for an additional suitability test according to need.
The amendment adds to the existing subsection (5) requirements and insists that that assessment of suitability must have regard to the person’s age, ability and aptitude and, critically, their needs in terms of personalised support and learning opportunities. That takes us back to matters raised in a number of debates in the past few weeks and in the oral evidence hearings before we started this part of proceedings.
I am grateful to the Minister, who undertook earlier in proceedings to write a letter setting out the Government’s thinking on the vulnerable groups of young people on whom the Bill will have an impact. We had in mind some of those youngsters when we tabled the amendment. I do not know whether anyone has referred this morning to his letter to me of 13 February, which I think has been copied to other members of the Committee. It helpfully sets down the Government’s initial thoughts on how enforcement will work in respect of those young people who could not easily be in formal education or training.
The letter is oriented toward who might be given an exemption from the strictures of the attendance panel. It is also directly relevant to the personalised support we want to have in place, if this part of the Bill to work fairly for the groups whose needs we are trying to meet. On the second page of the letter, the Minister sets out a long list of the groups of young people whom he accepts—

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.